Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In what circumstances would it be appropriate for a court to lift an automatic stay to allow a party to pursue arbitration? Charlotte Cooke, barrister at South Square, considers how the decision in Gardner v Lemma Europe Insurance Company informs our understanding of the court’s discretion.
Gardner v Lemma Europe Insurance Company Ltd (in liquidation)  EWCA Civ 484,  All ER (D) 175 (May)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a judge’s refusal to lift an automatic stay on proceedings being brought against the respondent, a company in liquidation. On the facts, the applicant had not established that he had a seriously arguable claim for an indemnity under his insurance policy with the respondent and, in the circumstances, the judge had not been wrong to refuse to exercise his discretion in favour of lifting the stay.
The main practical lesson to be taken away from this case stems from the Court of Appeal’s view as to the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to lift the stay. Patten LJ, with whom Kitchin and Floyd LJJ agreed, expressed the view that, in the absence of any challenge to the competence of the courts of the other jurisdiction to determine the dispute in the liquidation, the need to preserve the estate for the benefit of creditors outweighs the contractual right of the insured in this case to have his claim determined in England.
This was an appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking permission to lift the stay on proceedings in the UK against Lemma Europe Insurance Company Limited, a Gibraltar insurance company which is in liquidation.
The liquidation had been recognised in the UK by an order of Briggs J and the effect of that order had been to impose an automatic stay on proceedings against Lemma pursuant to Article 20 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030.
Mr Gardner, whose claim for indemnity under a policy with Lemma had been rejected by the liquidator, sought an order lifting the stay in order that he could pursue arbitration proceedings in respect of his claim to be indemnified.
At first instance, applying the principles summarised in Fennell v Halliwells LLP  EWHC 2744 (Ch), HHJ Cooke dismissed Mr Gardner’s application on the grounds that:
Mr Gardner appealed.
The issues for the Court of Appeal to decide were whether:
As to whether the HHJ Cooke erred in deciding that Mr Gardner could not show a genuinely arguable case, Mr Gardner accepted that in order to succeed he would need to show that:
The liquidator’s position was that the judge had been right in his conclusions in both regards—the correspondence properly construed did not constitute the making of a claim in the policy period, and in any event, even if it had done, the disciplinary proceedings did not arise out of that claim.
As to the judge’s exercise of the court’s discretion, it was argued on Mr Gardner’s behalf that an English solicitor should have a dispute relating to his indemnity cover determined in England, particularly having regard to the fact that both parties to the policy chose arbitration in England for that purpose. The liquidator’s position was that there was no basis on which the judge’s exercise of his discretion could be challenged.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that:
The judgment is helpful in clarifying the law in this area in two respects. First, it provides guidance as to the proper construction of policy terms. Second, it illustrates the factors to be taken into account in determining whether the stay on proceedings against a company in liquidation should be lifted.
Interviewed by Diana Bentley.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the links below for further information:
Factors the court will take into account when deciding whether to lift or impose a liquidation stay
Recognition and other applications under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234